Binder seems to be concerned that criticism of diversion programs is equivalent to calling for their abolition. However, their manifest consequences and their latent effects, including net-widening, must be assessed. The impact of a formalized and heavily funded program like diversion must be examined. Binder believes in expanded control of youthful misbehavior and broad directives regarding due process. His theories contradict 100 years of juvenile justice practice in the United States. The author followed the pattern of referrals in the first 4 years of a city diversion operation and compared it with 4 years of preprogram referrals, examining specific categories of offenses. He believes that the whole system of juvenile justice is affected by the introduction of a diversion program, which is likely to have two results. Either police are more aggressive in their overall pattern of referrals or misdemeanants who were referred as such prior to the program may now be referred to the diversion program. Binder wants to expand control of juvenile offenders. The author tests the extent to which the program achieves one or more of its stated goals and shows that expended control of juvenile offenders is a matter for concern. (Author abstract modified)